Category Archives: LDS Doctrine

LDS themes in Battlestar Galactica, Knowing, and Watchmen?

LDS Doctrine, LDS Society, Main, Media, Movies

SPOILERS BELOW! YOU’VE BEEN WARNED!

[NOTE: welcome to all the traffic from Twitter and from Roger Ebert’s review of “Knowing”! I’ve expanded a few things below for clarification.]

I’m going to discuss religious themes, particularly as related to LDS beliefs and themes, as found in the movies “Watchmen” and “Knowing”, as well as in the finale of the TV series “Battlestar Galactica”. In doing so, I’ll freely discuss spoilers, at least in “Knowing” and BSG. You’ve been warned.

If you don’t want to read the spoilers, let me tell you that I strongly recommend the BSG finale (the whole series, really) and the movie “Knowing”. I haven’t seen “Watchmen” (though I’ve read the graphic novel several times over the years), but based on what I’ve read about the film, I don’t plan on seeing it.

Continue reading LDS themes in Battlestar Galactica, Knowing, and Watchmen? →

Future(s) of the LDS Church

LDS Doctrine, LDS History, LDS Organization, LDS Society, Main, The Last Days

The last two posts have dealt with the future (in America) of Evangelism in particular and Christianity in general. Ardis Parshall’s comments on the former post raise the question of the extent to which these same factors impact the LDS Church. I’d like to poke at that a bit, mostly to explore ways in which the future of the LDS Church might be different from what faithful members typically envision.

Let me start by addressing the standard bifurcation between those who believe the LDS Church is what it claims to be  — the Church of Jesus Christ, restored by God Himself, the “only true and living church” — and those who do not. Those in the latter camp can and do envision all sorts of futures for the LDS Church, and they do so quite reasonably, since their premise is that it is simply a man-made organization (or, in some Evangelical circles, the Church of Satan) and so can suffer all the varied fates of any such organization.

For believing or faithful Latter-day Saints, however, the LDS Church is God’s kingdom restored to the earth, never to be taken from the earth again between now and the Second Coming of Christ. It is, in the words of Daniel’s vision as echoed in the D&C, “the stone which is cut out of the mountain without hands shall roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth” (though that passage actually refers to the Gospel, not the Church, as that stone). As such, our vision of the Church’s future tends to be largely more of the same — more wards, more stakes, more missionaries, more missions, more members, and maybe even a few more scriptures — with a brief period of last-days catastrophes, during which we live off our food storage (you do have your food storage, don’t you?), have a much shorter meeting block, and generally encourage and help each other while the rest of the world goes to pieces. Somehow in all this, our homes and our chapels (especially our stake centers) will be places of refuge for ourselves and our nice non-LDS neighbors.

But what if that standard picture is wrong or misleading? What if the course of the Church between now and the coming of the Savior turns out be quite different from what we usually presume? We often cite the books of Helaman through 4th Nephi in the Book of Mormon as providing a type and shadow of events surrounding the Second Coming and the Millennium, but in so doing, we ignore the fact that the Church of God goes from being dominant in both Nephite and Lamanite regions to almost (but not quite) vanishing completely just prior to the great destruction that accompanies the Savior’s death. In fact, one of the first things the Savior does when He appears to the Lehites at Bountiful is to re-establish the Church, reordain its leaders, and re-institute baptism, including for those existing leaders.

Orson Scott Card played with some of these themes in his Folk of the Fringe stories (all written in the 1980s), in which a limited nuclear exchange disrupts American (and American LDS) civilization. The stories are worth reading to see what Card does with this setting, particularly with what is in effect a rejection by God of the LDS Church in America.

Another favorite in this vein is a little short story called “Entry” by Stephen Scott, found in the book LDSF: Science Fiction by and for Mormons (Scott and Vickie Smith, eds., Millennial Productions, 1982). The story is only 3 pages long, and if I could contact either the author or the editors and get permission, I’d post the whole thing here. In brief, the story simply looks over the shoulder of the President of the Church at some future date as he is bringing his journal up to date for the week gone by. But in so doing, we learn about all the things that have changed in the Church (and in the world), such as:

  • the calling of full-time bishops
  • a reference to “Apostle Kantor’s ‘mixed’ marriage” (no further explanation is given)
  • the “new rulings on euthanasia”
  • the radical interpretation of the Word of Wisdom as part of the drive against world hunger
  • the death of the Prophet’s wives [yes, plural] in the California earthquake a few years ealier
  • taping his eulogy for Apostle Yoshimoto
  • site selections for new temples near Buenos Aires
  • his son serving a mission in Zimbabwe
  • his daughter attending BYU-Rome
  • the First Presidency meeting with the “Council of Twenty”
  • reference to six missions “behind the so-called Iron Curtain”
  • the new Church Headquarters, apparently located in Mexico (“across from the Hotel Baja”)
  • the reinstitution of the United Order in some areas
  • in giving a talk broadcast Church-wide, having to use translators “for those who did not speak Spanish”
  • opening of missions in Tibet, Madagascar, and Ceylon
  • a new hymn book
  • a four-hour private meeting with the Pope
  • a reference to “Apostle Hussein”

Again, this was published in 1982, before there were missions in Russia, Zimbabwe, and Madagascar (we’re still waiting on Tibet and Ceylon), before there were temples in Buenos Aires (or even in Mexico, for that matter, though there was one in Sao Paolo, Brazil), or even a new hymn book. 🙂 What I like about the story is the constant yet understated (and largely unexplained) introduction of things that we might not expect in a future Church, yet things that could well happen.

For example, if the Church continues to grow significantly, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the Council of Twelve expand into the Council of Twenty; I suspect the Twelve are pretty much overwhelmed as it is now. Likewise, given the relative growth of the Church in Latin America vs. the US and Canada, it wouldn’t surprise me to see Church leadership and organization move south in another 30-50 years, possibly sooner in the event of some catastrophic upheaval (social, economic, political, or even physical) in the United States.

So what are your thoughts for possible futures of the Church?  ..bruce..

Study: religion correlates with greater self-control

Belief systems, LDS Doctrine, Main, World Religions

An interesting article in the New York Times on New Year’s resolutions discusses the role of religion:

[Dr. Michael McCullough’s] professional interest arose from a desire to understand why religion evolved and why it seems to help so many people. Researchers around the world have repeatedly found that devoutly religious people tend to do better in school, live longer, have more satisfying marriages and be generally happier.

These results have been ascribed to the rules imposed on believers and to the social support they receive from fellow worshipers, but these external factors didn’t account for all the benefits. In the new paper, the Miami psychologists surveyed the literature to test the proposition that religion gives people internal strength.

“We simply asked if there was good evidence that people who are more religious have more self-control,” Dr. McCullough. “For a long time it wasn’t cool for social scientists to study religion, but some researchers were quietly chugging along for decades. When you add it all up, it turns out there are remarkably consistent findings that religiosity correlates with higher self-control.”

As early as the 1920s, researchers found that students who spent more time in Sunday school did better at laboratory tests measuring their self-discipline. Subsequent studies showed that religiously devout children were rated relatively low in impulsiveness by both parents and teachers, and that religiosity repeatedly correlated with higher self-control among adults. Devout people were found to be more likely than others to wear seat belts, go to the dentist and take vitamins.

But which came first, the religious devotion or the self-control? It takes self-discipline to sit through Sunday school or services at a temple or mosque, so people who start out with low self-control are presumably less likely to keep attending. But even after taking that self-selection bias into account, Dr. McCullough said there is still reason to believe that religion has a strong influence.

Read the whole thing. The self-selection issue is an interesting one and has some theological implications (“we will prove them herewith”); it also ties into enduring to the end. On the other hand, we believe that Christ’s atonement gave Him the power not just to forgive us but to change our very natures — to make us better than we are. I think our start is quite simple — “God, be merciful to me, a sinner” — but we have to follow where the Lord leads us.  ..bruce..

The inspiration of Dickens

LDS Doctrine, Main

I’m currently watching “A Christmas Carol” with Patrick Stewart on TNT. Scrooge has just been visited by the ghost of Jacob Marley, who explains that he is doomed to walk the earth and perceive those he should have helped but now cannot. He then takes Scrooge to the window to show him all the like spirits. Here’s Dickens’ description of the scene:

The apparition walked backward from him; and at every step it took, the window raised itself a little, so that when the spectre reached it, it was wide open.  It beckoned Scrooge to approach, which he did.  When they were within two paces of each other, Marley’s Ghost held up its hand, warning him to come no nearer.  Scrooge stopped.

Not so much in obedience, as in surprise and fear: for on the raising of the hand, he became sensible of confused noises in the air; incoherent sounds of lamentation and regret; wailings inexpressibly sorrowful and self-accusatory.  The spectre, after listening for a moment, joined in the mournful dirge; and floated out upon the bleak, dark night.

Scrooge followed to the window: desperate in his curiosity.  He looked out.

The air was filled with phantoms, wandering hither and thither in restless haste, and moaning as they went.  Every one of them wore chains like Marley’s Ghost; some few (they might be guilty governments) were linked together; none were free.  Many had been personally known to Scrooge in their lives.  He had been quite familiar with one old ghost, in a white waistcoat, with a monstrous iron safe attached to its ankle, who cried piteously at being unable to assist a wretched woman with an infant, whom it saw below, upon a door-step.  The misery with them all was, clearly, that they sought to interfere, for good, in human matters, and had lost the power for ever.

I was struck watching this on TV that there may be more truth in this than even Dickens imagined.  Here are some quotes about the location and nature of the spirit world, taken from a paper I co-authored some 30 years ago:

The spirits of the just are exalted to a greater and more glorious work; hence they are blessed in their departure to the world of spirits. Enveloped in flaming fire, they are not far from us, and know and understand our thoughts, feelings, and motions, and are often pained therewith.

Flesh and blood cannot go there; but flesh and bones, quickened by the Spirit of God, can.  [Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1938), p. 326.]

There are myriads of disembodied evil spirits — those who have long ago laid down their bodies here and in the regions round about among and around us; and they are trying to make us and our children sick, and are trying to destroy us and tempt us to evil. [Journal of Discourses (JD), 6:73; see also JD, 5:54-55]

When you lay down this tabernacle, where are you going? In to the spirtual world….Where is the spirit world? It is right here. [JD, 3:369.]

We think of the righteous and of the evil in their respective domains in the spirit world, but what of the merely neglectful? What of those of us who pass to the next world, still able to view this one but unable to help those we care (or should care) about, unable to make amends for that we should or should not have done? Some sobering food for thought.  ..bruce..

A people set apart: Mormons and Prop 8

Current events, LDS Doctrine, LDS History, LDS Organization, LDS Society, Legal, Main, Media, Politics

There has, of course, been much discourse on the bloggernacle about Proposition 8 in California and the Church’s involvement in it. Leaving aside the various arguments on the merits of gay marriage itself, the merits of the arguments on both sides of Prop 8, and the merits of the Church’s involvement in passing Prop 8, I was struck by a different thought today:

It may well be that God inspired Pres. Monson to take this approach to put all of us within the Church in a difficult position.

I am struck as I read through the ‘nacle at the number of posts that in one way or another express the thought, “Why can’t we be more like other churches and/or society at large?” This shows up in any number of ways, but I see it time and again. Often it’s a fervent wish that we would do away with one or more Church practices, doctrines, or historical events (missionary program, tithing, Word of Wisdom, garments, temple recommends/restrictions, the First Vision, priesthood restoration, the endowment, all-male priesthood, lay ministry, succession in the Church presidency, etc.). It certainly has shown up in the discussions on Prop 8, where the most recent post I read today used the word “fiasco” to describe the Church’s (successful) effort to support Prop 8.

My own reading of both Church and scriptural history suggests that the Lord often requires of His people practices and beliefs that prevent easy assimilation into the surrounding culture. And assimilation is what a lot of us would like. We’d like to fit in, to not have people look at us funny, to not have to explain about gold plates and special underwear. We’d like people to admire us unreservedly for being Latter-day Saints and to welcome us into their embrace, whether secular or ecumenical.

Ain’t gonna happen, at least not in my opinion. In fact, the way I read the scriptures, the gap is going to widen, not shrink. And we really are going to have to decide where our loyalties lie, regardless of our opinions about the merits of Prop 8 and/or gay marriage in general.

Of course, I find it funny and ironic that some of the same ‘naclites who complain about the Church doing this or that for “PR purposes” are now complaining about what a “PR disaster” the Church’s support for Prop 8 is.  Examine again the educational level and professional accomplishments of those who comprise the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. Do you really think these people weren’t clearly aware of just what would happen with the Church throwing such active support behind Prop 8? What they did, they did with the full knowledge and expectation of what the backlash would likely be, both short term and long term. After all, the Church had already been through this thirty years ago with the Equal Rights Amendment; President Monson and Elders Packer and Perry were in the Twelve back then as well, while several other Apostles (Ballard, Wirthlin, Scott, Hales) were General Authorities as well. That opposition was a constant news item and source of controversy not for days or weeks, but for months and years.

For that matter, those exact same individuals were likewise present for and involved in the Church’s decision to change its policy regarding blacks and the priesthood; I’d strongly recommend reading Edward Kimball’s 80-page article on that decision in the latest issue of BYU Studies (vol 47, no. 2).

And yet the Church took its activist stand for Prop 8 anyway. I think that actually argues for this being an inspired decision, because a purely rational one — from the sense of acceptance by society at large — would be at most to issue a simple disapproval.

In short, while any of us can (and clearly many do) disagree with the Church’s actions in this matter, I think it’s foolish and contrary to the facts to claim that Church leadership went into this decision out of fear, bigotry, and/or short-sightedness. I suspect it required very careful deliberation, discussion, and prayer — not to mention serious legal and political advice — and that they made the decision with eyes wide open as to the almost-certain backlash.

The real question is, how do we deal with our own feelings, particularly those who disagree with the Church’s actions? Even if we believe the decision to be a mistake, if our decision is to publicly criticize and excoriate the Church and its leadership, then what mercy and treatment do we expect from Christ (or, for that matter, from Church leaders and members) for our own follies, mistakes, and weaknesses? As I wrote back in 1994:

What is critical in this process [i.e., dealing with what we see as errors by Church leaders] is that it should be done with the same confidentiality, sensitivity, understanding, patience and forgiveness — in short, the same Christ-like behavior — with which we would desire our own imperfections and errors to be handled. The Savior taught that “if they brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou has gained thy brother.” (Matt 18:15) The Savior goes on to say that if that brings no results, we should inform the Church — which I would interpret as meaning the appropriate divinely-appointed stewards, not our circle of friends, the members of our ward, or the readership of Sunstone and Dialogue [not to mention the entire Internet]. We would probably be outraged, and rightly so, if we found that a church member — much less a church leader — was publicly criticizing our performance in our church duties; we’d even be upset over private criticism, if it was shared with those not involved in the situation. Yet all too often, we feel little compunction — and, worse yet, a great deal of self-righteous satisfaction — about doing the same, whether privately, over the net, in print, or even over the pulpit or lectern.

Given the above, the idea of a “community response” [by Latter-day Saints] to the statements, decisions and actions of church leaders is as appalling and inappropriate as would be a “community response” — complete with private discussion and correspondence, newspaper ads, public lectures and published articles [and again, blog postings] — as to how well any one of us is carrying out his or her stewardships within the Church and within his or her family. It ignores the dignity of the individual, and commandments toward charity, tolerance and forgiveness, and the channels which the Lord set up to deal with these issues. I suspect the Lord will not justify us in such a course, and that — whatever the errors of those we criticize — upon us will remain the greater condemnation.

As always, your mileage may vary.  ..bruce..

Baptism and restoration in the Book of Mormon (part 3)

Book of Mormon, LDS Doctrine, Main

I have written previously here about the practice of baptism among the Lehites (see here and here). To briefly summarize:

— About 50 years after leaving Jerusalem, both Jacob and Nephi1 teach about the universal need for baptism, though the record doesn’t talk about them actually baptizing anyone.

— For the next 400 years, there is no further mention of baptism at all in the Book of Mormon record as we have it (recognizing that we’re missing the Book of Lehi) — either as a doctrinal subject or as actually being practiced.

— After that 400 years, Alma1 reintroduces baptism among the Nephites, at the same time establishing a “church of anticipation” (called by the Lehites “the church of God”) that appears to be quite distinct from the kingly reign implementing the law of Moses that appears to have dominated among the Nephites during those 400 years. Note that it is never clear where Alma gets his authority to baptize; he is one of the unrighteous priests appointed to their positions by King Noah, so it’s unclear where his priesthood authority to administer baptism comes from[1].

— Baptism is then actively practiced among both Nephites and Lamanites for over 180 years right up until the destruction that occurs at the time of the Savior’s crucifixion, with Nephi3 leading the way up to the end and ordaining others to baptize as well.

Now comes the curious part. The great destruction occurs, the survivors gather at the temple at Bountiful (including Nephi3 and other disciples), the Savior appears — and He reintroduces baptism. The Savior explicitly states that he is giving Nephi3 and others “power that ye shall baptized this people when I am again ascended into heaven” (3 Nephi 11:18-22). The Savior goes on to explain the exact procedure by which baptism should occur and even gives the words of the baptismal prayer (3 Nephi 11:23-28), twice stating that “there shall be no disputations among you” regarding baptism (see verses 22, 28).

This immediately raises a few questions:

Continue reading Baptism and restoration in the Book of Mormon (part 3) →

Latter-day Saint exobiology (part 2)

LDS Doctrine, Main, Science

God is speaking to us in a consistent voice. God will deal with all the human family equally. We might be in a large ward or a small branch, our climate or vegetation may differ, the cultural background and language might vary, and the color of our skin could be totally different. But the universal power and blessings of the restored gospel are available to all, irrespective of culture, nationality, political system, tradition, language, economic environment, or education.

— Pres. Dieter F. Uchtdorf, 2nd Counselor, First Presidency, July 2008 Ensign

Or, one might add, to those living on a different planet altogether.

In part 1 of this series, I noted that the LDS concept of myriad inhabited worlds within this universe dates back to 1830, the same year the LDS Church itself was founded. In other worlds, LDS doctrine has from the start had a very expansive, non-geocentric view of reality. This is a doctrine in which “were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still…” (Moses 7:30), and in which “by [Christ], and through [Christ], and of [Christ], the worlds are and were created, the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.” (D&C 76:24).

But what will those sons and daughters look like?

Consider the diversity of human forms (usually lumped under the unfortunate term “race“) known to exist in historic times just here on Earth.  The MButi people of Africa average around 4.5″ in height, while the Watusi (since merged into the Tutsi) average — or used to average — around 6.5” in height; furthermore, there are anthropological evidences (albeit controversial) of yet taller and shorter population groups. There are wide variations in skin color, eye color, and hair color and type, as well as in the shape of the human skull, facial characteristics, and many other genetically-linked or -influenced traits. We then have to add in the influences of environment, including evidences of rapid evolution and growing genetic diversity among modern humans.

And that’s just here on Eath.

We in the LDS Church have historically been strongly influenced by our British/European roots in our view of the physical nature of God and Christ. But what if the Gospel had been restored (for argument’s sake and ignoring the socio-politcal difficulties) in Africa, China, or India, or among indigenous peoples in Australia, South America, or North America? How would we view God and Christ then? It’s an old argument, I know, but valid nonetheless.

Now, let’s extend the above to countless worlds spread across this universe, inhabited by “begotten sons and daughters unto God” who have lived and been shaped by countless different ecologies and environments, and who will need to be genetically and physically compatible with those worlds. What physiological traits of those humans might emerge and dominate on a given world vs. what traits would be common across all worlds?

The common traits would likely correspond to those common among humans here on Earth:  upright, bilateral symmetry, two arms, two legs, front-facing head with basic facial organization, two genders [yeah, yeah, go argue elsewhere], and so on. I suspect we’d recognize them as human — but, again, that covers an awful lot of ground right here on Earth.

There could be signficant differences as well. As a simple example, consider this listing of “7 people from around the world with real mutant superpowers” (warning: profanity; also, ignore the guy with the flying jet pack). Again, these are all people here on Earth; the human body, as we know it, is capable of things that we don’t fully understand, and such characteristics — rare here on Earth — could be selected as a survival trait on another world. Other rare characteristics, considered here as birth defects — such as extra digits or webbing between fingers and toes — could again be normal and common elsewhere.

There could likewise be variations in the characteristics listed above — height, eye color, hair color/style, skin color, skull and facial characteristics, overall body shape, and so on — that don’t appear here on Earth.  Nothing inherently prohibits blue hair, red eyes, or green skin; while they’re not in the human genome here on Earth (as far as I know), they could well exist in the human genetic code on other worlds.

The planet itself could shape or require a changed physiology. Consider factors such as gravity, air pressure, O2 content, solar radiation, humidity, land mass vs. water surface, dissolved minerals in water, climate (with the resulting weather patterns), and the fundamental chemistry of plants and animals, that is, food sources. This could change existing physiology — consider the claimed physiological adaptations of population groups that have lived for many generations at high altitudes — or there could be completely new physical characteristics that don’t correspond to any human characteristics here. As a simple example of the latter, imagine infrared sensors on one’s cheeks or neck, analogous to those found on pit vipers; this could be useful on a world surrounding a small red sun (the single most common type of star out there).

At this point, the image that comes to mind is (wince) “Star Trek: The Original Series”, with its variety of very-human-looking aliens, usually having only cosmetic external differences among them, though often claiming significant internal and sensory differences. Of course, “Star Trek” did this because it was cheaper and easier to slap some makeup and prosthetic foreheads on real humans than to try to create a truly non-human alien (though they actually made a few decent stabs at that as well).

In sum, I don’t think we can presume that the “begotten sons and daughters unto God” on these billions (or more) of other worlds would necessarily blend in while wandering around the BYU campus. But they would be our brothers and sisters, nevertheless. In that, we and the Vatican would agree — but we would mean it a bit more literally. ..bruce..

Aging with grace

LDS Doctrine, Main, Personal

Come, thou Fount of every blessing,
tune my heart to sing thy grace;
streams of mercy, never ceasing,
call for songs of loudest praise.
Teach me some melodious sonnet,
sung by flaming tongues above.
Praise the mount! I’m fixed upon it,
mount of thy redeeming love.

This morning , I was listening as usual to the 7 am rebroadcast of last week’s “Music and the Spoken Word” on BYU TV (I’m usually at church when the 9:30 am live broadcast comes on). The closing number was “Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing”, always one of my favorite hymns (and one that needs to be in our LDS hymn books). By the end of the performance, I was weeping — and not (just) because of the beauty of the arrangement and the singing. This hymn, like few others, speaks to my deepest struggles and frustrations in my own personal life.

I joined the Church at age 14, some 41 years ago. Through those four decades, I always assumed that by, let’s say, age 55 I’d be a lot more perfected than I am. As I have stated any number of times in talks and lessons at church, including just last week, the power of the Atonement is not just the power to cleanse us — it is also the power to perfect us, to change our hearts, to receive Christ’s image in our countenance.

Yet a few months ago I ran across some note cards I had written on twenty years earlier listing goals and areas for improvement in my life. With no little dismay, I saw that I could just as easily have written them just a week earlier instead of nearly half a lifetime ago. Where the change of heart, where the progress, where the perfection?

Here I raise mine Ebenezer;
hither by thy help I’m come;
and I hope, by thy good pleasure,
safely to arrive at home.
Jesus sought me when a stranger,
wandering from the fold of God;
he, to rescue me from danger,
interposed his precious blood.

It may just be me, but I wonder if we as Latter-day Saints generally tend to shift from focusing on works to relying on grace as we grow older. This doesn’t mean that we abandon our efforts at service to others and personal righteousness — quite the contrary — but that we realize how far short we will always fall from where we need to be. We struggle with the trivial and the mundane, and wonder how we’d ever deal with the wrenching and the profound — not always realizing that it is the starkness of the latter that often makes those decisions easier. It is in the day-to-day things that we often trip up.

As I grow older, I understand better the repetition of the phrase “endure to the end” in the scriptures. A large part of that enduring is, I think, enduring ourselves, particularly our own imperfections, and not becoming discouraged thereby. I think we run the real risk of giving up in frustration at our own failings, at the messes large and small that we’ve made in our own lives and the lives of those around us. It is why I think Paul and Mormon placed “hope” right between “faith” and “charity” — it is hope that keeps us bound to Christ, even when faced with our own sins, errors, and weaknesses.

O to grace how great a debtor
daily I’m constrained to be!
Let thy goodness, like a fetter,
bind my wandering heart to thee.
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
prone to leave the God I love;
here’s my heart, O take and seal it,
seal it for thy courts above.

This last verse is the one that makes me weep. It captures my fears, my frustrations, my hopes, and my pleas to God. The foundation of my hope is that I’m pretty good at enduring; beyond that, I simply have to trust that God’s grace will do the rest.  ..bruce..

[cross-posted over at Mormon Mentality]

“Tablet ignites debate on Messiah and resurrection”

Belief systems, Book of Mormon, LDS Doctrine, Main, World Religions

The “debate” cited in this New York Times article is triggered by a stone tablet — apparently predating Christianity — that talks of a Messiah rising from the dead after three days:

JERUSALEM — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.

If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.

Of course, that’s not going to faze Latter-day Saints much, since we believe that Jewish prophets were fortelling the Messiah’s death and resurrection (after three days) several centuries before Christ’s birth. Worth reading the whole article.  ..bruce..

P. S. Sorry for the lack of posting; it should be picking up a bit more this week.